Zero Punctuation: Medal of Honor Warfighter & Doom 3 BFG Edition
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Thing is, if you ask any bloodletting sonofabitch anywhere in the world or throughout history, they'll have a sob story to tell you. Every last one. The Nazis will tell you about the privations of the Treaty of Versailles. The Zeta cartel will have grinding tales of poverty. Right-wing death squads in South America will grieve for colleagues, friends and family members killed by leftist guerillas or criminal gangs, and rage against a government too impotent or corrupt to do anything about it. Palestinian suicide bombers will speak of checkpoints and air strikes. Hard-line Zionist vigilantes will weep as they tell of a three-year-old baby murdered in her bed.Grach said:
Does this justify whatever they do? Does this mean they should never be held accountable? Do we just shrug at their plunder, kidnapping, and murder because, hey, they have a rough time of it?
It's even more egregious in the case of Somalia. It's a place of great suffering, but the pirates are the guys, or at least the gunmen and enforcers of the guys, who are making it such an awful place to begin with! On that basis alone, they forfeit any claim to be sentimentalized. They're slitting throats, threatening aid workers, holding hapless sailors hostage for years, and starving whole families, and I'm supposed to shed tears because they're getting pretend-shot by a Navy SEAL robot in a video game?
I agree that Somalia wouldn't be so bad if it were more like Mexico (although Mexico has its own problems with militarized criminal gangs). Somalia wasn't always like this. Once upon a time, it had a central government and something approaching a civil society. And when efforts to help and feed Somalia fail because of pirates, it doesn't help their case. It rings a little hollow to say, "Our country is starving and we have no choice" when you're the guy making sure your country is starving. It's like the old joke about the guy who murders his parents, then begs mercy from the court on the grounds that he's an orphan.
The quality of a game has little bearing on its moral agency. And I'm not quite getting the lines you're drawing here. Max Payne 3 is an excellent game. May not be your cup of tea, and that's fine. As for Saints' Row, I don't understand how a straight-ahead, authentic portrayal of a real-life situation is awful and trivializing, but suddenly becomes okay if you transform death and horror into a hilarious cartoon full of ethnic stereotypes and dildo-bats? Doesn't that actually make it worse?Grach said:
Maybe not held unnacountable, but it sure as hell makes it way more morally ambiguous. After all, its way easier to shoot a bad guy because he is a bad guy, rather than shooting a guy who was either forced to loot to survive and feed his family or become a refugee. I will avoid talking about the real-life Somalia, mainly because I don't have a good grip on it's history, but I doubt something like shooting them for the sake of shooting isn't right in any way.
I think that the fact that good games can somehow influence the perception of their morally objectionable because developers who make good games tend to think of this kind of thing (not universally, as with the Max Payne 3 example you put forward, I've heard it's very tasteless in its handling). Besides, Max Payne, Saints Row aren't really as committed to realism as Medal of Honor making them a lot harder to look morally reprehensible.
What I'm basically saying is that they're still human being who were pushed to doing wrong because there is nothing else. In Afghanistan, the talibans are actually a sectarian minority that tarnish the name of a religion because they're inmune to irony. Don't get even started on the arab-israeli conflict, I'll just say the warring sides are massive assholes and the world and their countries would be better off without them. There is ALWAYS another side of the coin. Somalia's case is more critical since it has completly collapsed in humanitarian terms.
Also, the fact that you're fighting vastly underpowered and undersupplied enemies doesn't make them seem like a credible threat. It would be like playing a WW2 where you counter-attack the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge. This impacts the gameplay, making it look way less frantic and challenging in the end.
Jesus, it's like you haven't played Spec Ops: The Line or something.
Funny thing. The captcha for this "high horse".
I think that the fact that good games can somehow influence the perception of their morally objectionable because developers who make good games tend to think of this kind of thing (not universally, as with the Max Payne 3 example you put forward, I've heard it's very tasteless in its handling). Besides, Max Payne, Saints Row aren't really as committed to realism as Medal of Honor making them a lot harder to look morally reprehensible.
What I'm basically saying is that they're still human being who were pushed to doing wrong because there is nothing else. In Afghanistan, the talibans are actually a sectarian minority that tarnish the name of a religion because they're inmune to irony. Don't get even started on the arab-israeli conflict, I'll just say the warring sides are massive assholes and the world and their countries would be better off without them. There is ALWAYS another side of the coin. Somalia's case is more critical since it has completly collapsed in humanitarian terms.
Also, the fact that you're fighting vastly underpowered and undersupplied enemies doesn't make them seem like a credible threat. It would be like playing a WW2 where you counter-attack the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge. This impacts the gameplay, making it look way less frantic and challenging in the end.
Jesus, it's like you haven't played Spec Ops: The Line or something.
Funny thing. The captcha for this "high horse".
Well, let me have a shot...JPArbiter said:
"Oh you ignorant little bastards!
Shove your balls up your ass and clench yourself castrated.
I was into shooters while you were still sucking on Wii-motes, you cover-loving, health-regenerating, murder come-latelys.
You don't even know what a shooter is!
A shooter is fast paced, circle strafing, wits about you, rocket jumping, last crap of health, toodly fuck pies organic excitement in a fancy hat.
It is NOT lying on a conveyor belt to the next chest high wall and then resting your head on it until you get lulled into a lovely little sleep by other people's gunfire.
Perhaps this calls for greater clarity of language:
Doom 3, Painkiller and Resistance 3 we'll call 'shooters.' And we'll come up with a new name for Modern Warfare style games like 'spunkgargleweewee.'
I'm perfectly fine with people telling me I just don't like spunkgargleweewee. And Warfighter is bad even for spunkgargleweewee so gargle something else."
I have no idea if you were serious at all but I wanted to challenge my memory and hearing. So here you go. Did decent for the first part of the first paragraph. Then I had to rewatch the video over and over again.
Yeah, I see what you mean, but I guess I just have a different view. You see the pirates primarily as victims, and I see them primarily as victimizers, and both of us are pretty much right. I believe that in a more just world, they would be held accountable, for their crimes against the crews of passing ships, and for their role in the brutal oppression of the population of Somalia. And I just don't think that saying, "Hey guys, knock it off," is going to accomplish that accountability. I base this primarily on the fact that the international community HAS told them to knock it off, at least long enough to let the food shipments through, and it didn't do any good.Grach said:
And since I have no objection to anti-piracy operations in real life, I have no objection to shooting pirates in a video game.
Only the demo so far, which I liked quite a bit. I've heard great things about it, and the story seems deep and really interesting. I love the idea of a modern-day adaptation of Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. I'm planning to pick it up later this month.Grach said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you haven't played that mission. You play as part of a small team attacking a major pirate outpost on the Somali coast. While their weapons aren't as sophisticated as yours, they outnumber you by a significant margin. They have automatic weapons, RPGs, and LMG emplacements. They are dug in defensive positions and you are on the move. I got killed a number of times playing through that level. The "threat" felt as credible as it does in any other game.Grach said:
If you take a "big-picture" view, yes, they are dwarfed by the theoretical might of the US military, but in the particular tactical situation, that's irrelevant. It's like saying the enemies in Arkham Asylum aren't a credible threat because they're just muscled-up inmates and you're the goddam Batman.
Ha ha, that is awesome. I think captcha is trying to tell us something.Grach said:
As for the saints row vs medal of honor debate going on here; I'll take a stab at adding to the discussion even though I have played neither game.
Someone was asking why is Saints Row not as bad as MoH morally? Well it seems to me the approach is everything. If Saints Row is anything like GTA, the character is something of a glorified anti-hero. Basically you're role playing as a murdering asshole, right? But you probably don't need to murder civilians as part of the plot; it's just something you do while role playing in this fictional world; maybe because the "tone" of the game enables you to do it and it seems funny because of the wacky physics, or inhuman responses (someone mentioned old ladies giving you a run for your money).
But MoH is different. I assume You're role playing as a soldier in war. I assume the game also has a serious tone. Simplifying and dehumanizing the enemies as "foreigners" while paying absolutely no attention to their plight, while simultaneously glorifying the american soldier and what he does? Most of the time these games omit the true horrors of war, and the games that don't tend to further dehumanize the enemies by making it appear like tragedy is exclusive to 'murica at the hands of "generic evil". That is the biggest circle-jerk and most moronic attitude you can take while handling such sensitive subject matter. It's distasteful, and especially so because they're self touted "realistic" shooters. That's what takes the cake. It wouldn't be an issue if you took the same game and replaced the enemy army with sprites from Doom 1. It's the fact that these games use actual countries more or less unfamiliar to the 1st world US gamers as the generic evil to mow down that makes it distasteful and moronic. Killing civilians in the US in GTA? Morally wrong obviously, but still better than most realist war shooters because at least it's not despicably dehumanizing an entire race or country.
Someone was asking why is Saints Row not as bad as MoH morally? Well it seems to me the approach is everything. If Saints Row is anything like GTA, the character is something of a glorified anti-hero. Basically you're role playing as a murdering asshole, right? But you probably don't need to murder civilians as part of the plot; it's just something you do while role playing in this fictional world; maybe because the "tone" of the game enables you to do it and it seems funny because of the wacky physics, or inhuman responses (someone mentioned old ladies giving you a run for your money).
But MoH is different. I assume You're role playing as a soldier in war. I assume the game also has a serious tone. Simplifying and dehumanizing the enemies as "foreigners" while paying absolutely no attention to their plight, while simultaneously glorifying the american soldier and what he does? Most of the time these games omit the true horrors of war, and the games that don't tend to further dehumanize the enemies by making it appear like tragedy is exclusive to 'murica at the hands of "generic evil". That is the biggest circle-jerk and most moronic attitude you can take while handling such sensitive subject matter. It's distasteful, and especially so because they're self touted "realistic" shooters. That's what takes the cake. It wouldn't be an issue if you took the same game and replaced the enemy army with sprites from Doom 1. It's the fact that these games use actual countries more or less unfamiliar to the 1st world US gamers as the generic evil to mow down that makes it distasteful and moronic. Killing civilians in the US in GTA? Morally wrong obviously, but still better than most realist war shooters because at least it's not despicably dehumanizing an entire race or country.
That argument was put to rest 4 years ago when the specs came outNeiloken said:
though if you like the ones for Halo 4 then fine? I can't really see this being much of an argument thanks to statistics (though again, I'm kind of in the who cares camp, the same way I don't have the argument about PS3 not having games; if you think Halo 4 is the best graphics game in the world then thats awesome, glad you like it, I just disagree)OT: Its nice to know I can now express why I like Bioshock and Serious Sam but CoD can suck a bag of dicks, thanks one again ZP.
Well that explains why I've been able to enjoy the occasional shooter, but have had absolutely no time for spunkgargleweewee. I'm seriously going to call them that from now on.
I am not at your beck and call.WaitWHAT said:
You're projecting, not arguing.
Argue against what I say, not what you're TRYING TO MAKE ME say.
I never ONCE advocated stopping progress towards peace, if that's what you're trying to imply.
But what you're talking about does not in any way apply to "war". You cannot civilize war.
War is the most base, brutal social activity there is. By trying to civilize war, YOU CONTRADICT ITS DEFINITION.
What you're advocating is "police work" or "Policing".
WAR AND POLICING ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
I REPEAT.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. VERY DIFFERENT MENTALITIES APPLY TO BOTH.
WAR HAS NO RULES OF LAW. NONE. ZERO. EMPLOY MEANS AVAILABLE, KILL OPPOSITION UNTIL THEY ARE DEFEATED. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR WELFARE, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE TRYING TO FUCKING KILL YOU.
YOU CAN NO MORE CHANGE THIS FUNDAMENTAL IDENTITY OF WAR THAN YOU CAN CONVINCE AND ANT COLONY THE SAME.
POLICING CARES ABOUT RULES AND LAW FOREMOST. POLICING IS ABOUT MAINTAINING ORDER AND PEACE. POLICING DOES *NOT* IMPLY NON-LETHAL MEASURES. OCCUPATIONS ARE AGGRESSIVE FORMS OF POLICE ACTION. POLICE-STATES ARE THE SAME.
(incidentally, this is why I find the term "War Crimes" grossly inappropriate; an oxymoron)
The horrifying weaponry created and employed in both world wars is something we choose not to employ again, because of the long term impacts on our environment and people as a whole.
That is good. It's wonderful.
Similarly, choosing not to eradicate an enemy's people out of convenience and "security" is an ethical step forward.
These are all STEPS AWAY FROM WAR. Not COMBAT. WAR. There is a difference.
This is why I find "Illegal Invasion" silly beyond comparison, because invasions are the first step in warfare (though on reflection policing may involve invasions too, like a SWAT team entering a building. However, that wasn't the context the original post I quoted used it in).
"Combat" and "War" are strongly related, but not implicitly identical.
I've seen real life combat occur in my city. Does that make my city a warzone?
Of course not! That's ludicrous.
If you still have personal grievances about this and care about it, PM me.
Atmos Duality, your definition of war is incorrect by the common understanding (also, you obviously feel strongly about these issues and I see how some of his attitude and his expecting you to answer quickly would irk you, but caps lock and swearing do not make your points stronger either).
If your personal opinion is that war is unrestricted and that any semblance of order at all defines it as police action then do your democratic bit change this term to your understanding in the common parlance, but you'll keep running into a different understanding. As for WW2 there are thousands of recorded instances of even the Nazis restricting themselves. I guess you could divide WW2 into millions of little 'war' and 'police action' subdivisions, but you'll be considered somewhat silly on this particular point by most historians and linguists.
War is a wide term, even when restricted to its high frequency definitions above (1-3) of which the latter definitions are derived, whether it fits your ideological understanding of the common lexical register or not.
Then it delves into verbs and adjectives with mostly derivative meanings and the German origin of the word meaning 'strife'.
If your personal opinion is that war is unrestricted and that any semblance of order at all defines it as police action then do your democratic bit change this term to your understanding in the common parlance, but you'll keep running into a different understanding. As for WW2 there are thousands of recorded instances of even the Nazis restricting themselves. I guess you could divide WW2 into millions of little 'war' and 'police action' subdivisions, but you'll be considered somewhat silly on this particular point by most historians and linguists.
War is a wide term, even when restricted to its high frequency definitions above (1-3) of which the latter definitions are derived, whether it fits your ideological understanding of the common lexical register or not.
Edit (editing in that this is a reply): ^ Yes, I agree fully, though I guess he is right in a marginal sense, seeing as:
There are some ideological sectors of society that have and are, mostly subconciously and unconciously it seems, trying to rebrand the meaning of war to be equal to just killing, in order to accomplish their ideological goal (to reduce warfare). I guess they've managed to confuse Atmos Duality. It's a noble goal, but the wrong means, in the long run the ideological advantage gained by equating war with unrestricted warfare to frighten people has and will continue to cause a fundamentally shallow understanding of many types of organized violence.
The funny thing is if they are successful the meaning of war changes (amidst much bickering) and new words are developed to fill the void, thus returning the situation largely to the status quo (some minor twists and changes would shape the new meanings differently, but would be hard to predict to say the least (and could be useful for either war or pacifism)).
There are some ideological sectors of society that have and are, mostly subconciously and unconciously it seems, trying to rebrand the meaning of war to be equal to just killing, in order to accomplish their ideological goal (to reduce warfare). I guess they've managed to confuse Atmos Duality. It's a noble goal, but the wrong means, in the long run the ideological advantage gained by equating war with unrestricted warfare to frighten people has and will continue to cause a fundamentally shallow understanding of many types of organized violence.
The funny thing is if they are successful the meaning of war changes (amidst much bickering) and new words are developed to fill the void, thus returning the situation largely to the status quo (some minor twists and changes would shape the new meanings differently, but would be hard to predict to say the least (and could be useful for either war or pacifism)).
I will ride in the name of this quest!Strain42 said:
And for Twing-Twang!
No. Bioshock was not a shooter.Strain42 said:
To be honest, in previous discussions, I myself forgot [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.95249-What-would-be-the-reception-of-a-really-thoughtful-and-deep-game#1484750] that Bioshock was a Murder Creativity Playset. From the point of having played the game, its easy to forget that pasmids became less potent against enemies, and in particular, I ended up using mainly the crossbow, frag launcher, and anti-personnel pistol rounds (cause the sub-gun chewed up too much ammo for the damage it did). So in that way, yeah its a "shooter". But honestly:
<youtube=O-mw27j-Sa0>
This is a "shooter"?
The wrench *alone* is highly entertaining!
Oh, I'm sorry.WaitWHAT said:
I just find it more visually efficient not to quote if I'm responding to the post directly above, my bad (I should've added a - or ^ tag), plus that I wasn't actually disagreeing with you at all, simply trying expound on the margins of the word/term's meaning for fun. ^^ ---
Anyway, apropos linguistics, while I partly agree with Yahtzee (I like BF with healthbars and good teamplay) he'd have more luck with a less derogatory name for MMS.
Spunkgargleweewee is funny, but it'll never catch on except with a few people, if Yahtzee found a subtly, but catchy way of deriding MMSs he might be able to affect consumer/gamer opinion more.
I stopped reading here.WaitWHAT said:
If you want to wank your ego up, fine. Wank it up, and leave me out of it.
If you want to talk like adults, leave the self-congratulatory shit-flinging out in the future.
Conversely, equating war with "combat" only undermines the nature of combat and creates ambiguity.cwDeici34 said:
Or the fact that Colonial Europe tried that before, only to end with World War 1.
Much less funny is going the opposite route and treating everything as war.
"War on Terror!"
Yes! We declared war on an intangible, ambiguous concept!
Oh shit, it already happened...
Which, incidentally, contradicts the definition (in context) of that dictionary attack you used earlier.
